Idaho Hunting Fees 2021 Non Resident (Big Elk Increase)

[sneaky]

I can act like wtf I want. Your not my boss

Sorry I'm not an know it all like you Idaho boys.
I still think it stupid not to just include it. No matter if every state does it.

"You're" lol

MT is $10. They charge over a thousand bucks for deer and elk combo but they can't include a $10 archery stamp. Freaking Wyoming went from $20 to $75 with their last price hike. Idaho is going to $80 starting in 2021. They all just want that little bit extra.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Farmerlentz]

Chesser got busted because he's a tool not sure how guys like that have any following

 

[Marble]

Pioneer zone stinks,I wouldn't waste my time there

 

[Marble]

Well I just checked my cart and it wasn't automatically included. Ignorance is not an excuse for not getting it, but at the same time, it's not obvious that it is necessary.

I do not think the manner in which tag prices were raised will work out the best for them. From a business perspective, if you wanted to maintain customers you would increase pricesgradually. Not a 50% overall increase in one year. I'll still pay it because I currently can. And I'll still be on the trail packing out my animal while a few residents again start in on how I am ruining it for them. Ive held my opinion for awhile each time I hear it. Seems like they are just jealous I'm successful.

 

[sneaky]

Well I just checked my cart and it wasn't automatically included. Ignorance is not an excuse for not getting it, but at the same time, it's not obvious that it is necessary.

I do not think the manner in which tag prices were raised will work out the best for them. From a business perspective, if you wanted to maintain customers you would increase pricesgradually. Not a 50% overall increase in one year. I'll still pay it because I currently can. And I'll still be on the trail packing out my animal while a few residents again start in on how I am ruining it for them. Ive held my opinion for awhile each time I hear it. Seems like they are just jealous I'm successful.

That's because the A tag in Pioneer zone isn't an archery only tag. There's the any weapon portion of the unit you can hunt as well.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

It didn't hurt Wyoming one bit when they raised their tag prices a couple of years ago. They still have an extremely high demand for their tags, same with Montana. If they had raised tag prices $25 a year for the last 10 years people would still have complained, just like they're complaining now for the once a decade price increase.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Slim Jim]

I’ll still be going because OTC won’t last forever. Hunting eventually will only be for the rich.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Justin.Medcalf]

It seems that every state is complaining about lower hunter recruitment but every state seems to be raising its resident and non-resident fees. I wish that the state game agencies would look within and trim some fat and put money where it needs to be instead of charging us extra to make up the difference. I am a resident of WA and am lucky enough to have a good career that affords me the financial security to buy all my tags and my boys tags; but I don't know how some of the lower income families can afford even WA's resident tags for a family. It seems like we are going backwards. I have even tried to sit on multiple WDFW advisory committees and never get looked at, always get the sorry your not qualified. I guess they only want bankers and white color execs not blue collar guys. Sorry if this is off topic!

 

[Wrench]

It seems that every state is complaining about lower hunter recruitment but every state seems to be raising its resident and non-resident fees. I wish that the state game agencies would look within and trim some fat and put money where it needs to be instead of charging us extra to make up the difference. I am a resident of WA and am lucky enough to have a good career that affords me the financial security to buy all my tags and my boys tags; but I don't know how some of the lower income families can afford even WA's resident tags for a family. It seems like we are going backwards. I have even tried to sit on multiple WDFW advisory committees and never get looked at, always get the sorry your not qualified. I guess they only want bankers and white color execs not blue collar guys. Sorry if this is off topic!

I've on WDFW advisory boards AND I lived in Otis at the time.my advice is don't waste your time. If the $fee in Idaho is important, move the 10 miles east.....but font expect common sense to appear at any WDFW level that has enforcement and biology in the same arena.

 

[Marble]

I dont know what the numbers for WY were before and after so I cant comment on how the increase in fees affected tag purchases. It's not apple to apples, but when CO changed the way they do their draw a few years ago, to where people didnt have to pay the entire fee up front, it caused the applications to go up substanially and the hunting pressure went way up too because of affordability of the initial draw application, drew bbn in more hunters.

But the comment above about overall hunting numbers going down for quite some time is true. Keeping people in the sport with money being funnelled in is important.

 

[87TT]

Quit looking at it as an increase. Look at it for what it was, a bargain for the last ten years. Just because as far as I know Idaho is the only state where tag increases have to go to a vote of the legislature after the DFG holds hearings and takes comments and then votes for it.
As for the archery permit, if you read the regs, you will see under licenses and permits that there is one. What do you think it's for???

 

[idahohikker]

At this point I think the threads expressing frustration about nonresident fees are tired. I certainly would love to hunt other western states for $30 like I do as a resident but that’s not happening and I’ll gladly pay what is charged to get my tag. I budget and pay and that’s that.

 

[Anello]

This thread is a good example of how institutionalized the hunting community has become. Somehow, some of you are arguing that price increases, however they fall, and regardless of the absence of reasoning or justification for them, are OK because other states have done it, establishing persuasive authority to do so. Additionally, some of you made the comment that this was an example of market economics at play. Neither are or should be true. Tags are licenses issued by the state. The state owns the monopoly on issuing a license to you to hunt, which is a very different thing than when a state or private entity is a market participant. Additionally, states are independent actors, and are not subject to, nor required to acknowledge arbitrary state taxes imposed in different jurisdictions. There is no need to assert a tax or price increase on a license because a state can, or because another state has gotten away with it. Think about what you are saying here. This is blind support of the government imposing pricing increases on state generated licenses, at will. The whole idea of hunting and fishing is to allow the average citizen to enjoy the outdoors, which is also something that is included in your Fed and State taxes already (with all obvious limitations).

I'll say it again, we need the next generation to have the opportunity to get involved in the outdoors. When I was 19, there is no way I could have afforded a $4-$800 big game tag, in addition to licensing fees, etc. Resident fees have also gone up in several states, which also presents a barrier to entry for lower income folks or for younger folks. What we should be demanding is that our elected officials DO BETTER, and not constantly fall back on asking that WE give more. We, as a community, do more than almost any other genre of public interest (see all the folks on here who donate time and $$ to conservation efforts, etc.).

Sorry for the thread jacking rant here, but this idea that the game departments ALWAYS need more of our money, and should ALWAYS be able to arbitrarily raise prices is absurd, illogical, and exclusionary. Again, provide a SOLUTION. If that is limiting NR tag #'s so that the residents of a state, like Idaho, have better odds and opportunity, I Am OK with that, assuming the solution is reasonable. If $$ is the issue, DO BETTER with what you have, and then offer other opportunities to hunters, at a reasonable cost, that could offset the perceived losses in income due to limitations of tag #'s or non-resident fees. This could include Wolf hunts, Mountain Lion Hunts, Coyote Hunts, Turkey, Waterfowl, Uppland Game, etc. Those additional other opportunities would invite folks to spend money in the state, provide hunting opportunities, manage predators (in some cases), and offset the $$ lost by accomplishing your initial goal ... and would do so by INCREASING hunting opportunities at a reasonable cost.

I say all this very respectfully, as I am not interested in flaming fellow hunters, but we all need to wake up and stop supporting unreasonable license and tag fees. Rather, let's support each other, and stand up for ALL members of our community so that we can enjoy hunting for generations to come.

 

[Terrapin]

There was a public comment period in Idaho. Public sentiment was to raise the prices on non-resident tags to the point that people quit coming here from out of state. I have a feeling that if they had allowed a public vote to decide the amount of increase, it would have been drastically higher than what F&G settled on.

Here are some resident rebuttals to the common arguments:

Non-resident tags fund the Fish & Game.
“We don’t like fish and game and we don’t need them”

Non-residents bring money to hotels.
“We don’t like hotels and we don’t need them”

Non-residents support our guides and outfitters.
“We don’t like outfitters and we don’t need them”

Fact of the matter is, Idaho has doubled in population compared to when I got my first license at 12. Huntable land has diminished by a large percentage. Meanwhile, the game resource has been stressed by wolves, habitat loss, and hunting technologies that allow us to hunt longer, easier and more efficiently. Idaho is not big on introspection... we look at the external causes our perceived degradation of hunting quality... namely: wolves, out of state hunters, and people moving here from other states.

Yes, we know that out of state hunters bring money into the state. We also know that youth hunters are the future of our sport... we also know that we should drink less, exercise more, and eat a balanced diet...




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bobbyboe]

This thread is a good example of how institutionalized the hunting community has become. Somehow, some of you are arguing that price increases, however they fall, and regardless of the absence of reasoning or justification for them, are OK because other states have done it, establishing persuasive authority to do so. Additionally, some of you made the comment that this was an example of market economics at play. Neither are or should be true. Tags are licenses issued by the state. The state owns the monopoly on issuing a license to you to hunt, which is a very different thing than when a state or private entity is a market participant. Additionally, states are independent actors, and are not subject to, nor required to acknowledge arbitrary state taxes imposed in different jurisdictions. There is no need to assert a tax or price increase on a license because a state can, or because another state has gotten away with it. Think about what you are saying here. This is blind support of the government imposing pricing increases on state generated licenses, at will. The whole idea of hunting and fishing is to allow the average citizen to enjoy the outdoors, which is also something that is included in your Fed and State taxes already (with all obvious limitations).

I'll say it again, we need the next generation to have the opportunity to get involved in the outdoors. When I was 19, there is no way I could have afforded a $4-$800 big game tag, in addition to licensing fees, etc. Resident fees have also gone up in several states, which also presents a barrier to entry for lower income folks or for younger folks. What we should be demanding is that our elected officials DO BETTER, and not constantly fall back on asking that WE give more. We, as a community, do more than almost any other genre of public interest (see all the folks on here who donate time and $$ to conservation efforts, etc.).

Sorry for the thread jacking rant here, but this idea that the game departments ALWAYS need more of our money, and should ALWAYS be able to arbitrarily raise prices is absurd, illogical, and exclusionary. Again, provide a SOLUTION. If that is limiting NR tag #'s so that the residents of a state, like Idaho, have better odds and opportunity, I Am OK with that, assuming the solution is reasonable. If $$ is the issue, DO BETTER with what you have, and then offer other opportunities to hunters, at a reasonable cost, that could offset the perceived losses in income due to limitations of tag #'s or non-resident fees. This could include Wolf hunts, Mountain Lion Hunts, Coyote Hunts, Turkey, Waterfowl, Uppland Game, etc. Those additional other opportunities would invite folks to spend money in the state, provide hunting opportunities, manage predators (in some cases), and offset the $$ lost by accomplishing your initial goal ... and would do so by INCREASING hunting opportunities at a reasonable cost.

I say all this very respectfully, as I am not interested in flaming fellow hunters, but we all need to wake up and stop supporting unreasonable license and tag fees. Rather, let's support each other, and stand up for ALL members of our community so that we can enjoy hunting for generations to come.

DEAD ON, THANK YOU!!!!!

Just because a different state does it, doesn't mean its right. If there is truly a shortage then maybe the wildlife agencies should look at other who use the public land resources as a possible revenue stream. What ID is doing to curb supposed overcrowding is just crazy, plain and simple. This should not be a resident vs non resident issue.

 

[87TT]

So quit making it one. Deer and elk are a resource and a valuable one. We should charge what is right. Residents are first and NR can pay or not. If I buy a product from a different state or country, I have to pay what it's worth or go without, period.

 

[Bobbyboe]

So quit making it one. Deer and elk are a resource and a valuable one. We should charge what is right. Residents are first and NR can pay or not. If I buy a product from a different state or country, I have to pay what it's worth or go without, period.

So, what is an elk worth? What is the right charge? Is $25, $50, $100, or $200 the right cost for a resident? Is $500, $600, $800 or $1200 the right cost for a non resident? Would you be alright if the State deemed that the appropriate cost for a resident is $500? If an elk has a true worth or cost, then it should go up with the same percentage for both residents and non residents, as does inflation. ID clearly stated that prices were going up to purposefully try and reduce NR number, not because the resource is worth more.

Taking advantage of a person or situation because you can doesn't make it right. Great example of this happened this week. The two brothers who bought several thousand bottles of sanitizer were trying to use an available resource to make a profit. People were willing to pay inflated prices for the sanitizer and did. The public and the Government saw what was going on, identified it as gouging and stopped the practice. The brothers may now be in legal trouble.

So, a simple question. At what point are the non resident (not just Idaho) tag fees considered price gouging? Would you consider $2,500 for a non resident elk tag gouging? How about a $40 bottle of Purell?

 

[sneaky]

I dont know what the numbers for WY were before and after so I cant comment on how the increase in fees affected tag purchases. It's not apple to apples, but when CO changed the way they do their draw a few years ago, to where people didnt have to pay the entire fee up front, it caused the applications to go up substanially and the hunting pressure went way up too because of affordability of the initial draw application, drew bbn in more hunters.

But the comment above about overall hunting numbers going down for quite some time is true. Keeping people in the sport with money being funnelled in is important.

Wyoming gives 7,250 bull tags to NR, and the cow/calf licenses varies from year to year, but they are within a couple hundred tags total for being the same as ID. 12,815 for ID, 12,571 in WY. Points needed for a bull tag in Wyoming are going up every year as over 23k people a year are applying for them. Demand far exceeds supply.
Colorado saw a huge increase in APPLICANTS for their hunts when they went to the cheap application fee, which wrecked OIL tag odds, but they quickly changed that to where you have to buy a qualifying license and the applications plummeted as they knew they would. You'll never catch the good units in Colorado, even those with max points may never draw a tag. Everyone in Idaho enters the controlled hunt draws with the same odds in either the R or NR pool. The only fair system. If the legislature in Idaho had their way they would go to the same points system as other states use, Utah, specifically. Big landowners and the wealthy have been trying to get a points system installed for years and the public has shot that idea down every time. They'll eventually tack it on to another bill and get it passed so they can make money off of it though.


Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

Moral of the story is this, if YOUR own state charges more for NR to hunt or fish than a resident then you have no leg to stand on in arguing against license costs in Idaho. I also highly doubt your NR license costs are the same now as they were 10 or 20 years ago either.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[sneaky]

This thread is a good example of how institutionalized the hunting community has become. Somehow, some of you are arguing that price increases, however they fall, and regardless of the absence of reasoning or justification for them, are OK because other states have done it, establishing persuasive authority to do so. Additionally, some of you made the comment that this was an example of market economics at play. Neither are or should be true. Tags are licenses issued by the state. The state owns the monopoly on issuing a license to you to hunt, which is a very different thing than when a state or private entity is a market participant. Additionally, states are independent actors, and are not subject to, nor required to acknowledge arbitrary state taxes imposed in different jurisdictions. There is no need to assert a tax or price increase on a license because a state can, or because another state has gotten away with it. Think about what you are saying here. This is blind support of the government imposing pricing increases on state generated licenses, at will. The whole idea of hunting and fishing is to allow the average citizen to enjoy the outdoors, which is also something that is included in your Fed and State taxes already (with all obvious limitations).

I'll say it again, we need the next generation to have the opportunity to get involved in the outdoors. When I was 19, there is no way I could have afforded a $4-$800 big game tag, in addition to licensing fees, etc. Resident fees have also gone up in several states, which also presents a barrier to entry for lower income folks or for younger folks. What we should be demanding is that our elected officials DO BETTER, and not constantly fall back on asking that WE give more. We, as a community, do more than almost any other genre of public interest (see all the folks on here who donate time and $$ to conservation efforts, etc.).

Sorry for the thread jacking rant here, but this idea that the game departments ALWAYS need more of our money, and should ALWAYS be able to arbitrarily raise prices is absurd, illogical, and exclusionary. Again, provide a SOLUTION. If that is limiting NR tag #'s so that the residents of a state, like Idaho, have better odds and opportunity, I Am OK with that, assuming the solution is reasonable. If $$ is the issue, DO BETTER with what you have, and then offer other opportunities to hunters, at a reasonable cost, that could offset the perceived losses in income due to limitations of tag #'s or non-resident fees. This could include Wolf hunts, Mountain Lion Hunts, Coyote Hunts, Turkey, Waterfowl, Uppland Game, etc. Those additional other opportunities would invite folks to spend money in the state, provide hunting opportunities, manage predators (in some cases), and offset the $$ lost by accomplishing your initial goal ... and would do so by INCREASING hunting opportunities at a reasonable cost.

I say all this very respectfully, as I am not interested in flaming fellow hunters, but we all need to wake up and stop supporting unreasonable license and tag fees. Rather, let's support each other, and stand up for ALL members of our community so that we can enjoy hunting for generations to come.

Ridiculous rambling rant. Idaho already offers wolf hunts for NR that are cheap, same with mtn lions, turkeys, bears etc etc. Every state reserves the right to set tag numbers and license prices as they deem necessary to A) protect the resource B) cover their operating costs. Name one thing that hasn't increased in price over the last 20 years. You act like this isn't supply and demand. It absolutely is. Demand is increasing for a finite resource and the states have reacted accordingly.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk